SICKO: Smashing New Moore Movie

This is a must watch movie.
Simply incredible.
Its about the total failure of the US health care system to take care of its people.

If you are in the US for the opening next week, by all means buy a ticket.
However you choose to view it, this is a must see movie for Americans.
Moore is on record as not being upset that this free download is available. He wants all Americans to watch this movie. He wants us to rise up and change the broken system!

So, here is a way to watch it if you aren't in a place where it is showing, like Thailand. I just did this. It worked fine and the movie made my cry.

The info for this download is at:

http://zerosworld.net/index.php
and go to the movies section and Sicko thread

Shortcut if you don't want to register there:

Movie download:
http://fileho.com/download/6ca420167612 ... B.rar.html (http://fileho.com/download/6ca420167612/Sicko-Speedy-B.rar.html)

then extract the file

player download:
http://codecguide.com/download_mega.htm

It will not play on a standard Windows media player

Oooooh...it's about HEALTH CARE! I thought it was about our old friend Silom...

Sicko is Michael Moore's best yet. It shows that American health care went wrong starting with Richard Nixon in 1973... "All roads lead back to Nixon". It poses interesting questions to those who object to "socialized medicine" in America when they already have "socialized" police and fire protection, i.e. government provided. So, why not health care too? What if they privatized police and fire instead? Call to report a fire or crime at your home and if you cannot afford to pay they deny you service, like health care is now?

[Bob]

"Total failure" of the US health system. Hardly. Not even close to the truth regardless of Moore's movie. In fact, health care is generally rather superb in the states (whether in New York, Florida, Michigan, California, Arizona or wherever).

With respect to emergency care, federal law requires treatment of anyone showing up at the door even if they can't afford to pay for it. All below the poverty level qualify for medicaid assistance (for example, my secretary's daughter, who earns less than $12,000.00 per year and had a premature baby who had specialized ICU care for the first 5 months- all to the tune of over a million dollars in hospital/doctor charges which was fully paid by the government).

I do bitch about paying my health insurance which is about $400.00 per month....but, given the median wages in the states, that's really not that bad.

The people who are having the health care crisis (especially for elective and preventive care) are those falling between the poverty level and lower middle class), and generally only those in the inner (large) cities. They cannot afford health insurance and generally choose to do without. And a few of their hospitals are in financial crisis (of course, that doesn't include the various Mayo Clinic hospitals with the baby grand pianos and Starbucks in the lobbies...)

I would note that I'm from a city of 16,000 residents and, while we sometimes bitch about the cost, I've never heard anyone say anything but that the hospital and health care providers around here are excellent.

I actually like Michael Moore and share many of his political views...and I look forward to seeing Sicko when it comes to my town; however, one needs to balance his view with reality. I've heard of the long wait for various procedures in both Canada and Europe and that generally doesn't happen here (in fact, we get quite a few Canadians coming to my state for
various procedures they don't want to wait for at home).

Simply incredible.
Its about the total failure of the US health care system to take care of its people.


Brilliant, you mean all we have to do is sit back watch, like the domino effect? I wonder if the resistant strain of TB will speed things up a little, some of us have lost all patience.

Bob,
you don't understand.
People with preexisting conditions CANNOT BUY the needed insurance AT ANY PRICE. And even if they could, how many people have the money for ANY PRICE?
The film is mostly about how the INSURANCE COMPANIES exist to DENY TREATMENT to people who are actually COVERED.
You live in a brainwashed dream. Wait until you get a serious disease with your so called insurance and then see what happens.
The film also addresses the false myths you have been programmed with about the Canadian system. What you said is total garbage. Canadians love their system and wouldn't trade it for the US system (the most expensive in the world with the worse access in the western world) for anything!

WATCH THIS MOVIE!

[elephantspike]

With respect to emergency care, federal law requires treatment of anyone showing up at the door even if they can't afford to pay for it. All below the poverty level qualify for medicaid assistance (for example, my secretary's daughter, who earns less than $12,000.00 per year and had a premature baby who had specialized ICU care for the first 5 months- all to the tune of over a million dollars in hospital/doctor charges which was fully paid by the government).

Your secretary's daughter is lucky that she didn't make $12,001.00 last year. If she did, she'd have to pay $400 a month for coverage, just like you did. (but $400 a month is a lot to folks like us. Khaow Chai mai?)

She'd just get sent the bills, instead of them getting sent to Medicaid. Of courseshe can't pay them. It doesn't matter. She makes that extra dollar per anum. It is her responsibility to pay all of her own medical bills. That extra dollar per year makes her middle-income.

Same boat as me.

The people who are having the health care crisis (especially for elective and preventive care) are those falling between the poverty level and lower middle class), and generally only those in the inner (large) cities. They cannot afford health insurance and generally choose to do without.
Absolutely. And what are those MILLIONS of Americans supposed to do when faced with illness or injury?

I gave up my health insurance in the US years ago, when I realized that it was costing me far more than what it would to simply pay for medical care in Thailand out of my own pocket.

Your secretary's daughter is lucky that she didn't make $1,201 last year. If she did, she'd have to pay $400 a month for coverage, just like you did.
Just to drive it home, if someone making $1300/month pays $400 (and a policy that cheap won't be close to full coverage for a serious illness/injury) that leaves them a whopping $900/month to live on.

From that $900/month they also would probably need to pay the first several hundred dollars of care before the policy kicks in. That $400 policy does not cover expenses 100% from the first dollar, nor would it cover 100% of expenses even after the deductible is covered.

See the movie.
Even having insurance is no guarantee whatsoever of coverage.
The companies do everything they can to DENY DENY DENY. There only motivation is profits. Your life or death means NOTHING to them.

[francois]

I would like to hear from Canadians who have had experience with their health care. From what I know from Canadian friends there is a very long wait even for simple surgical procedures.
Regarding Michael Moore he does have a strong tendency to stretch the truth to make his points. For example in Bowling for Columbine he touted how safe it was in Canada to the point people did not have to lock their doors. Obviously he has never been to Montreal, the crime capital of North America.
Not having seen the film ( I have read about it) I cannot comment on it s content however, if I had to undergo major medical care neither Canada or Cuba would be my choice.

I would like to hear from Canadians who have had experience with their health care. From what I know from Canadian friends there is a very long wait even for simple surgical procedures.
Regarding Michael Moore he does have a strong tendency to stretch the truth to make his points. For example in Fahrenheit 9/11 he touted how safe it was in Canada to the point people did not have to lock their doors. Obviously he has never been to Montreal, the crime capital of North America.
Not having seen the film ( I have read about it) I cannot comment on it s content however, if I had to undergo major medical care neither Canada or Cuba would be my choice.
Interesting.
It seems you are full of it. Another victim of right wing insurance company propaganda.
Most Canadians would not EVER want the horrible INSURANCE BASED USA system!!!
Nor would the French.
Nor would the British.

NINETY SIX PERCENT OF CANADIANS PREFER THE CANADIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, ONLY TWO PERCENT WOULD FAVOR THE DISGUSTING SHAMEFUL MURDEROUS USA SYSTEM!!

And yes, I meant the word MURDER. If you don't believe, WATCH SICKO. You will see a major HMO executive CONFESS to the murder of patients by DENYING needed medical care of her insured customers in order to make more profit for her company and gain promotion. MURDER. That is our wonderful USA system.

Got that now?

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/uhc-canus.pdf

And the LONG WAITS MYTH is a RIGHT WING LIE!


http://www.massnurses.org/single_payer/time.htm



A single-payer system for Massachusetts тАУ The time has come
By John V. Walsh, MD
John Walsh is professor of physiology, biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He is a member of Physicians for A National Health Program and twice ran for U.S. Congress on a single-payer platform. He says he lost each time тАЬby exactly one million dollars.тАЭ

The United States spends over $4200 annually for each and every man, woman and child on health care, and yet we leave over 44 million Americans without health insurance and one quarter of our population underinsured. (The expenditures here in Massachusetts are even greater, over $5000 per capita, and yet we leave between 400,000 and 600,000 without health insurance out of a population of 7 million.) In contrast Canada spends about $2200 per capita, insures its entire population and guarantees everyone his or her choice of doctor and hospital. Moreover, Canadians live an average of two years longer, have lower infant and maternal mortality rates and are generally healthier than we are. Most startling is that the U.S. now spends over $2500 per capita for health care out of public funds, more than Canada spends in toto on health care.

Clearly our neighbors to the north are doing something right. But the facts about their system are rarely heard and no assertion about it is too wild to see newsprint these days тАУ thanks to the vested interests opposed to genuine health care reform. So how does CanadaтАЩs system work?

From the point of view of the average Canadian, the system amounts to a card тАУ in appearance much like a driverтАЩs license тАУ issued to each and every citizen. A Canadian simply presents this card to the doctor or hospital of his or her choice, and the government pays the bills. ItтАЩs as simple as that. Everyone, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, gets the medical attention they deserve.


The question of waits

Are the anecdotal accounts about long delays, so favored by right wing pundits, in fact true? In a poll reported some years ago the by The New York Times, virtually every Canadian polled said they get whatever health care they need within 24 hours! And the care is every bit as high tech as in the U.S. For example, there are the same number of organ transplants in Canada per capita as in the U. S. It is true that for some elective procedures, for example, knee replacements, the wait is a few weeks longer on average than in the U.S. (Of course those in the U.S. without insurance will have no wait since they cannot get the surgery at all.) But for other illnesses, the waits are shorter. For example, if a woman detects a lump in her breast, she will be diagnosed more quickly in Canada than in the U.S.; and if a malignancy is detected, surgery will be done sooner! When Canada adopted its universal, single-payer system, care shifted toward the more urgent and serious illnesses. ThatтАЩs because decisions are made by health care professionals on the basis of the need for care and not by bureaucrats on the basis of ability to pay and the desire to maximize profit.

BTW, I know Montreal quite well. It us MUCH SAFER than most any large USA city.

[Smiles]

" ... I would like to hear from Canadians who have had experience with their health care. From what I know from Canadian friends there is a very long wait even for simple surgical procedures.

... Regarding Michael Moore . . . obviously he has never been to Montreal, the crime capital of North America ... "
Although in principle I grate at having to agree (somewhat) with the hysterical and screeching Jingthing on much of anything (him rolling out that beloved 'ALL CAP' technique of making a point ~ as usual), I would agree with him that the quote above is one delicious tidbit of pure malarkey.

Regarding the Crime Capital thing, good god man, have you seen these figures regarding ~ for instance, murder rates in a Canadian city/American city comparison. In the circled example you might take note that Philadelphia has 10 times the murder rate of Montreal, while having half the population. Some crime capital.

Further to note, this ratio of 5-10 times generally holds true in each chosen city pairs.


http://www.photodump.com/direct/sawatdee/murderinc.jpg


The stats ~ as you can see ~ are from 2000 (it's the only comparison chart I could find in a short search), but in fact the rates of murder have gone down during the last 7 years (both in Canada & the States), so I suspect the ratio shown in the chart is still reasonably valid.


On the Canada Health system . . . although wait times for certain types of procedures (not all by any means) are longer than in the States, that situation seems to be slowly shortening as the Provincial governments ( the administers of the Health care system ) have been told in no uncertain terms that that is the number one bitch Canadians have with the system as a whole.
In the US one can jump the queue if one has the bucks. The Canada Health system is based on the opposite philosophy ... that everyone no matter their resources has equal access to the system. No one jumps ahead of anyone simply by having the wherewithall to pay a doctor or a hospital administrator (or whoever).

Canadians do in fact support their health care system by a huge majority . . . which does not mean they don't like to whine about the shortcomings, they do, vociferously. However most Canadians (to throw out a figure, probably to the tune of 85-90%) have no desire whatsoever to emulate an American-style health care system (actually calling it a 'system' is a stretch). Canadians would much prefer to use it to their greater health, and carry on encouraging governments to make it better year by year.

Cheers ...

[francois]

Sorry about the hyperbole "Crime Capital of North America" it is the sort of the thing Michael Moore likes to indulge in. I did get carried away after reading some of the remarks by Jingthing.! But not all crime is murder. Twice my car was stolen in Montreal one block off of Rue St Catherine. I have been assaulted on the street and witnessed the same with others. The place is filled with crazies, druggies, drunks and gang members. One has to be alert there.

And I do appreciate hearing a Canadians view of their health care system which is what I asked in my post.

Finally, how did Smiles know I hail from Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, the murder capitol of the US?

I didnt know MY FORUM'S POSTS got that far!!!! (SICKO THE MOVIE 1file dl)
thanks for the free advertising!

ZEROSWORLD_NET

Read this RAVE REVIEW of SICKO:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... QN3IQ1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/29/DDGD8QN3IQ1.DTL)

Then, watch the movie.
Tell your friends.
Tell your enemies.

[francois]

I admit I have not seen Sicko but I have seen some reviews. The New York Times says Sicko is Michael Moore's Funniest Movie to Date; Rolling Stone say You'll Laugh Till It Hurts and Ebert and Roper give it Two Thumbs Up as "Hilarious". So is this film a comedy or a serious examination of health care in the US? Maybe a little of each?

I admit I have not seen Sicko but I have seen some reviews. The New York Times says Sicko is Michael Moore's Funniest Movie to Date; Rolling Stone say You'll Laugh Till It Hurts and Ebert and Roper give it Two Thumbs Up as "Hilarious". So is this film a comedy or a serious examination of health care in the US? Maybe a little of each?
To many people, health care reform is a dry, wonky issue.
Moore has infused the issue with emotion and humor.
A million kudos to this wonderful big man.

... in comments about Michael Moore is that with his figure he's hardly a walking advertisement for preventative medicine. Like Al Gore's documentary (Al is another Jingthing hero - draw your own conclusion about Mr Thing's political leanings) it's a series of unrelated anecdotes masquerading as a cogent argument

... in comments about Michael Moore is that with his figure he's hardly a walking advertisement for preventative medicine. Like Al Gore's documentary (Al is another Jingthing hero - draw your own conclusion about Mr Thing's political leanings) it's a series of unrelated anecdotes masquerading as a cogent argument

I'll bet anything that Homintern's view is formed without having seen the film.

The film isn't really about preventative medicine. Well, the issue is skirted in it, but not a major part of it. Since doing the movie, Mr. Moore has become much more aware of his health risks and is making an attempt at addressing them. The issue of the film is about what happens when people do get heart attacks, do get strokes, do get aids, whether it is their "fault" or not. Particularly people who actually do have insurance and think they have nothing to worry about. The films message. DO WORRY. Do demand a change.

And yes, the vast majority of credible world scientists about climate AGREE with Al Gore about global warming.
Not related issues in the least though.